ABSTRACT
The precedential value of a given case is based not solely on the decision direction, but also on the decision frame; which is in part conditioned by what judges believe will ease their retention. The field of public law has historically focused on decision-making in judicial cases, attempting to statistically model what affects a judge’s likelihood to vote either one way or another. We wish, instead, to focus on the opinions as it contains all the precedential value, legal reasoning, and citations that other courts and institutions will build upon. This opening chapter will introduce the readers to the idea that the judiciary acts as a representative institution, and how this concept allows us to better understand the rationale for written, public opinions by the court. To do this, we first shift our focus to state courts of last resort, which exist in an environment that has rich institutional variation. Variations in how judges are selected and retained should affect how opinions are drafted and framed, primarily because this changes the judge’s primary constituency.
